economy. you said and something i disagree he with. >> 8% unemployment. 16 trillion dollar debt we're not moving forward, juan. >> we are moving forward. >> bill: no reason we're moving forward. >> yes, and i think that most americans disagree with you and think that the economy is finally starting to go for it and in fact. >> bill: based on what? >> if you just-- >> based on what? >> if you don't invest in education, infrastructure and the american people and just give money back to the rich then you go back to the days where, you know, less taxes, less regulations and-- >> you're both disagreeing, but you're agreeing in a round-about way and i've got to run. it's about money-- >> and a larger part of the identification, playing a large part-- >> no, this was about money. again, thank you for watching us tonight. i am bill o'reilly, please always remember that the spin stops right here and we're definitely looking out for u right now, brand-new stories and breaking news.

>> all eyes on the house of representatives as we await some action on the fiscal cliff deal. we are live with the late-breaking developments as we wait to hear from congressional democrats. and the health crisis facing secretary of state hillary clinton. new details about her condition and how doctors are treating the blood clot that was found near her brain. and a. a young mom facing jail time on child abuse charges, ordered not to get pregnant for the next 13 years. is that legal? our panel weighs in. and a very rare new year's day session for the house. just hours after the senate passed its version of the fiscal cliff bill. >> house democratic leaders speaking now. let's listen in on what they have to say. >> gave us a thoughtful and detailed explanation of what's gone on and how it was that he and the president working with the democratic and republican leaders in both houses were able to come together on this

compromise. we first want to say thank you to the vice president for being so gracious. quite honestly so frank in his conversation with us in explaining as much as he could about what's transpired over the last several weeks. we now are waiting to hear from our republican colleagues whether or not they want to do what the senate did in a very bipartisan fashion and give the american people an opportunity to have a vote. there are people throughout this country who might look at this deal and love it, some might hate it, some may not understand it. but we firmly believe that every american this this country should have a right to vote in the people's house. the senate sent us a bill. we are hoping the house will respect the wishes of the american public and let the representatives of those people vote up or down on that legislation. and with that let me turn now

to our leader, nancy pelosi. >> thank you very much. last night the senate -- well, i guess it was early this morning, the united states senate voted in an uncharacteristically in a very bipartisan way 89 votes in favor of the compromise legislation. that was historic. that legislation was sent over to the house. up until now our speaker has said when the senate acts we will have a vote in the house. that is what he said. that is what we expect. that is what the american people deserve. so we look forward now as we go forward in this day to see what the timing will be for a straight up or down vote on what passed 89-8 last night in the united states senate. today we had the privilege, as our chairman has said, from hearing from the vice president. he talked about what's in the

legislation and what lies ahead and difficult negotiations as we go forward. we had a frank, as you said, mr. chairman, a frank discussion in that regard. our members after thoughtful dlir bracings and review are continuing to review the legislation weighing the pros and cons and weighing the equities of not going over the cliff, but we are all very eager to see the form that the republican leadership will put on to the floor today. i think we have made gigantic progress. i hope we can have a bipartisan agreement as we go forward, but as i said, our members are making their decisions now and we look forward to hearing from the republicans have to say. a person who will know best what our numbers are in this regard at some point are our distinguished master counter. >> thank you very much, madam

leader. 112th congress has about 46 hours left to go. this congress unfortunately has been most known for a unwillingness to compromise, an unwillingness to come together to act on behalf of the american people. today is january 1st. taxes will be going up on everybody in america. in america if we don't act. those relying on unemployment insurance, millions relying on unemployment insurance to make sure they can support themselves and their families. if we don't act, we will be at risk. vice president biden has worked very hard to come to a compromise. by definition a compromise has elements in it that each party does not like, but by

definition it has things in it each party should like of the the speaker said that if the senate passed a bill he would put it on the floor for a vote. the leader has pointed out we expect that to happen. we think that's in the best interest of the american people. we hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can reach compromise. our members are reviewing the specifics of the compromise that has been reaped to determine whether they can support that compromise. i am hopeful that this congress will as one of its last act, not only on this compromise, but i am also very hopeful and would expect that we would provide the emergency assistance needed for the victims of sandy, one of the country's worst storms in history that damaged the northeast so badly. so i am hopeful we will be

able to move on both of these issues, and that we will have members on both sides who perhaps will not agree, but hopefully we will have members on both sides who will agree, and we can act as the american people expect us to do so. >> why don't we ask mr. van holland. >> thank you. i will be very brief. i think the difference between a divided government and dysfunctional government is the willingness to compromise. we saw that in the senate as leader paw -- leader pelosi and hoyer has said is looking at agreement and deciding it helps democrats and republicans and whether it helps move us forward. we are hopeful republicans on the house will do as democrats and republicans did on the

senate and weigh all of the equities here, but decide at the end of the day that not everybody gets a hundred percent of what they want. democracy means a willingness to come together for the good of the country. and that's what compromise is all about, especially in an era of divided government. our members are taking a look at the bill, and we just would ask our republican colleagues to bear in mind the good of the country as they also weigh all of the equities here. and with that i turn it over to the distinguished vice chairman of the caucus, mr. crowellly. >> thank you. i will add very briefly, we all appreciate the vice president to come to the caucus in a straight forward, very thorough way explaining the process, the negotiation and why we are where we are at today. i do think though the time for discussion and talk is coming to an end. it is going to be time for us

to vote soon. or all of this would have been for not. our being here new year's eve, new year's day and happy new year to everyone, would have been for not if we don't come to some point and have a vote. that's what the american people deserve. that's what the american people expect out of this process. we can either move forward in a bipartisan way, hand in hand, to avert the fiscal cliff or our republican colleagues could help lead us off that cliff. we hope that's not the case. >> questions? >> if i can ask -- >> i think you were first. >> can i just ask what are your spies on the other side in a sense telling you how it is going over there? you have to count heads with them as well. >> i am not stipulating to any charktization to any information we receive from our friends in the press. i really have no idea.

>> -- to try to prove this. what are you hearing from the other side? >> i think your question is better addressed to the republicans coming out of their conference. we just came out of ours, and we know what you tell us as to what is coming out of theirs. >> we haven't had an opportunity to talk to their leadership at this point in time. >> you said a moment ago you would prefer a straight up or down vote on that. >> absolutely. >> is that because of the time, or is that because it is a deal brokered by the vice president? >> no, it was a bill that was passed in the united states senate 89-8. tell me when you've had that on a measure as controversial as this. >> they had problems with that one almost to the number. >> right, well i hope that we don't have a re-enactment of that where the republicans in the house painted themselves in the extreme of not wanting to find compromise in a

solution. but let's be optimistic. let us all as mr. hoyer and others have said hope they decide in favor of the country as we go forward, but the issue whether we have an up or down vote shouldn't even be a question. there shouldn't even be a question. we were told we would not have any legislative -- legislation on the floor until and unless the senate acted, and when they did we would have a vote. and so we want to have that vote. we look forward to what the timing is on that. and this is all about time. it is about time that we brought this to the floor. as mr. hoyer mentioned it has only been a matter of a couple of months since the election, eight weeks. and in that period of time we have been pushed into a mu year. it is long overdue for us to have a collusion to -- a solution to go forward and remove all doubt as to what comes next for our country.

so we expect, the american people deserve, an up or down vote on what was passed in the senate. >> if there is an up or down vote, how many democratic votes would you have, would you be able to deliver? >> that isn't a subject i will be talking about right now. as we mentioned all of us -- >> members are considering the legislation. they just heard from the vice president, and we will find out which members -- >> if you are saying you want bipartisan ship from the other side, don't you have to say that you are willing to support this piece of legislation? >> i don't think there is any doubt we will have bipartisan ship. she asked me for a number. i can tell you we will have a bipartisan vote. >> thank you very much. >> when will you start -- [inaudible] >> you have been listening to

house democratic leaders regarding the senate bill that was agreed to in the early morning hours. that bill would let income tax rates rise for the first time in 20 years, maintain unemployment benefits for millions of people, also blunt the impact of spending cuts that were looming as part of that so-called fiscal cliff. just to briefly summarize for you, the senate bill will raise taxes on incomes of $450,000 for couples $400,000 for individuals, cuts $15 billion in spending while increase tax revenues by $620 billion. that's a 41-1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. the senate voted 89-8 in favor of the package. thousand putting it into the hands of the house. so now we are here. chief congressional correspondent mike emmanuel is live for us on capitol hill. mike, do you think they will

act? we heard nancy pelosi asking for the straight up or down vote. take us through the steps. what would that involve? what does that mean? >> it is interesting, heather, listening to that. everybody on capitol hill is wondering what the house republicans thinks about the deal. the deal was struck by the vice president and the senate republican leader. the house republicans haven't embraced it yet. they have been meeting behind closed doors. there are a lot of questions about what they are hearing about republican support, how many democratic votes they can bring to the table. the straight up or down vote is they are saying they want to vote on the bill as passed in the senate by a wide bipartisan margin last night. that's interesting because a fairly senior house republican said a very short time ago that he cannot imagine this bill passing in the house without it being sent back to the senate with some amendments. spending cut amendments which a lot of house republicans have heartburn because they say there should be more spending cuts in this bill, but we are running out of time. you heard that point also

made. there is 46 hours left in this congress before a new congress is sworn in. ping-ponging back and forthwith amendments gets complicated. we are waiting to see what the house republicans decides to do. heather? >> a busy couple days and the time is limited. thank you so much, mike emmanuel. we will check back in with you. >> quick break and then much more on the fiscal cliff. and the rogue nation iran engaging in war games this new year's day. the country test firing weapons near a critical piece of real estate. a live report from the middle east straight ahead.

welcome back. we just heard from the democrats in the house asking for a straight up or down vote on the senate's version of the fiscal cliff bill. the number two republican in the house of representatives just speaking out. we are just getting word that he has told the republicans in the house that he is opposed to the senate's version of this bill, and that could be

critical. so let'sok at what this could mean for your bottom line. first of all the bill as it stands right now, the one passed in the senate would end the payroll tax cut, hikes taxes on income above $450,000 a year for families. it makes the alternative minimum tax patch permanent. it also extends unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and proposed spending defense and non-spending cuts. for a look at the economic impact, let's talk to the managing partner at chap wood investments. it seems like this will be tough to get through the house of representatives, but for our conversation right now we can talk about what we know about the senate version of this. what do you think? >> well, i will tell you, it is not surprising. what people don't understand, when you don't have a bill where you are addressing spending, what you are saying is we have all of these programs. how are we going to pay for them?

what the government does is goes out and literally prints money. when that happens, it makes the prices of everything you spend money on go up because the value of the dollar, our currency, goes down. that's why when you hear tax hikes versus spending, that's why he is coming back saying i have a problem. there are no spending cuts which means prices will go up. the only way to pay for this stuff is to print money which is going to slow our economy down even further. >> i know, but ed, everybody has been saying for months now that if a deal isn't worked out that the country will go back into a recession. so here we have republicans in the house who have legitimate gripes with this bill that passed through the senate that involves absolutely no spending cuts, and yet if they stand in the way of its passage, are they not sort of helping us over and putting us back into a recession? >> yes, well, it is debatable whether we will go into a recession one way or another. but we will definitely go into a recession if we go over the fiscal cliff.

it is really a shame we are in this discussion right now and at this point. what will happen most likely the house of representatives will come out and do an up or down vote at some point. saying that before we went on is a major deal. apparently they will want to go in and pick away at this, and not just take the senate bill and vote on it. we are still at this cliff at this moment. do i like this bill? of course not. it doesn't do anything. i like the fact it keeps unemployment insurance. i like the fact that we are not doing it at $250,000 and looking at $400,000 or higher, but it won't do anything for the economy. the economy is in rig rigormortis and nothing is stimulating it, and that's what we need. >> democrats will certainly blame republicans especially tomorrow when the markets open up. and if there is no deal or if the prospects of the deal seem bleak, the markets are not going to like that. >> no, they are not. markets like clarity. one way or another we need

clarity. if we do go over the fiscal cliff, even if in the short time. we are already seeing taxes go up across the board. you know the 3.8% obamacare tax and an increase most likely on those that earn $400,000 or more will go up quite a bit on a percentage basis. so we are going to see a slower economy, less money in the economy, and the stock market doesn't like that because corporations won't earn as much. everybody needs to put on their seatbelt because this will last for a longtime, even going into the debt conversation that will happen in about two months from now. things are a mess, and we need to get things straight eped out quickly. >> he is the managing partner at chap wood, happy new year. we will talk again soon. >> you too. take care. new details emerging about the deadly september 11th attack on our consulate in libya. what we are now learning about the changes made to the talking points about the attack. plus, an oil rig trying to get out of the path of a major

storm runs aground. this is off the coast of alaska. new information on the environmental threat up next.

welcome back. new information on a story we have been following for you. there appears to be no oil leaking from a shell oil rig that has now run a ground off the coast of alaska. the rig was being towed away from the path of a massive storm when the cables snapped for a second time. crews worked to make sure the rig ran aground in an area that would pose the least risk to the environment. all 18 crew members on board have been evacuated. they are now working on getting the rig moving again. a senate report just out

shedding new light on the aftermath of the deadly terror attack on our consulate in libya in september. the report faulting intelligence agencies for not focusing closely enough on libyan extremists. stating it was the fbi, the cia and other intel sources that changed official talking points about the attack and not the white house. ambassador susan rice had been under fire for weeks about comments she made right after the attack leading some lawmakers to question whether the presidential staff had rewritten the talking points for political reasons ahead of the election in november. he is the former senior advisor. happy new year, happy to see you, christian. thanks for being here. >> what do you make of the senate report? >> unfortunately it doesn't shed that much light on the issue. there are ways the talking points can be manipulated without the white house staff sitting down with a red pen and changing them. this report says the changes were made at the agency.

it is perfectly easy and reasonable for white house staff to pick up a phone and say, you know, it would be better if them pho sized the possibility of a movie causing these protests rather than the real cause which was the al-qaeda affiliate who planned and executed the uhing tay. the key issue remains. there are a lot of questions about the talking points that remains. >> the white house said they only changed one word, and this report from the senate committee also says that as far as their investigators were able to uncover, there wasn't a lot of actual changes that were put in place by the white house staffers. so what makes you so sure? i guess, yes, politically ahead of an uh election where a president is running for re-election with the idea al-qaeda is on the run and he is securing america and americans all over wouldn't want this kind of thing to happen, but what other evidence is there, concrete evidence that in fact the white house was more involved in what has been stated?

>> there is a lack of concrete evidence because the administration hasn't made any senior principals who have had direct knowledge of the political chain of events that took place in the white house. we learned a lot more about what happened minute by minute in benghazi and not in the white house. the fact that susan rice and hillary clinton have not been up to testify yet is one of the problems. there is another issue that makes me certain. senior principals if you are the president and the ambassador to the u.n, susan rice or hillary clinton you get a treasure trove of intelligence when important events break. including susan rice and jay carney who went out on tv who said this was a reaction to a movie would have seen lots of intelligence from realtime overhead imagery during the attack from radio communications that came in realtime from the attack. all of that would have said terrorist attack. so to come out days later and say it wasn't, we have lost sight of the bigger intelligence picture here which said terrorist attack.

>> i'm sure you saw or heard what the president said on "meet the please" this pass sunday when asked about benghazi. he called it sloppiness. he said it was unintentional. i am wondering if you think there will ever come a time when we think that's what it was or if there's something more to it. >> i think what would have to happen is a real congressional investigation. this is one respect by one committee in the senate which is democratic controlled. i think the house will is have to hold hearings. i think the only way the administration will give up real witnesses and provide information, the executive branch has always had a history of over classifying information that does not need to be concealed from the american people. to get real witnesses and real information, the house will have to threaten the state department's budget, and then you have the bureaucrats throwing the politicals under the table which is the opposite of what is happening now where the politicals are throwing the bureaucrats under the table. >> good to see you, thanks for

coming in. coming up, more reaction to the deal. we will take a look at which players will come out winners and which will be the losers in this big fight. plus a wet and wild start to 2013. who took the icy plunges in a new year's tradition. that's up next.

new developments in the fiscal cliff fight, and we are

live on capitol hill as we now await action in the house of representatives on the senate bill which passed pretty overwhelmingly. eric cantor now saying he opposes that bill. this is -- this as house democrats got a visit from mitch mcconnell and hammered out this deal. brett joins us now. how significant that cantor came out against this? >> good afternoon. it is very significant he said publicly that he opposes the senate bill. the real question is whether as house majority leader that he will be with other voters voting against a piece of legislation that hits the floor, or whether it moves to the floor at all. you heard the democratic leader, nancy pelosi, come out calling for an up or down vote as soon as possible. we don't know the plan for republicans. we are just getting word from the speaker's spokesperson

saying there will be conversations throughout the afternoon suggesting this could take some time after the house gop caucus meeting we are told by reporters and producers up there that members were coming out saying it seemed likely that there would be a process to amend the senate bill, and then send it back with additional spending cuts. there was universal concern over gop members about the lack of spending cuts in the senate bill. the compromise bill that passed from the senate. if that happens, if the house amends it and sends it back, then senator reid would have to take up the house bill and act or choose not to, and we could either have a ping-pong match between the senate and the house dealing with amendments back and forth, or you could have a real stall, and the thing could go no where. >> it could go no where because this congress is about to end. the bill that passed in the

senate, am i right, becomes null and void as of when, tomorrow afternoon sometime? >> actually thursday at noon is when the new congress is set to be sworn in. technically the senate bill expires at that time when the new congress is sworn in. now whether parlimentary procedure could be invoked and they could delay the new congress from coming in, i think we would have to talk to the experts about that, but what we are looking at now potentially is another long night is the bottom line here. and remember that you are going to start to see economic reaction if this starts to signal like this might not happen. you have the asian markets opening up tonight. we will get our first indication of what the world thinks of all of this back and forth in washington. and then tomorrow the u.s. markets react for the first time to whatever happens here in washington over the next 24 hours. >> it is not going to be good. it will get messy quickly.

brett, happy new year to you and your family. you can see 6:00 p.m. eastern on a special edition of "special report" and will be here -- as he said it will be a long night and a long night for brett depending on t here for youin dc. on fox. >> more now on the fallout from the fiscal cliff deal as we take a look at the major players on both sides of the aisle. we try to figure out the winners and the losers in this big fight according to the washington post. the winners were -- the winner were vice president joe biden, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, president obama and west virginia senator joe manchen and legislative jargon. the losers, congress, president obama, makes both lists, and awful those new year's eve plans. for a fair and balanced analysis now with democrat from texas and brad blakman.

thank you for joining us and happy new year's day, i guess. >> happy new year. thank you. >> we are talking about the winners and the losers in all of this. on that list from the washington post, a lot of politicians. you know what really matters in this is the american people. i want to know from both of you who wins in this? it is still not even over. brad, i will start with you. >> heather, the american people are the big losers. they are not winning in this deal. we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. we should have been dealing with spending first. there should have been a bill and we should have dealt with see -- sequestration. there were two house bills, one on spending and taxation that the senate never took up. the bottom line is this, when you govern out of duress instead of deliberation, it is always a mess. it is always a crisis with the president and the senate and

not moving legislation, and that's why we are in the mess we are in. the american people have lost. >> this doesn't deal with sequestration. it delays budget cuts in the defense department for two months. >> that's correct. we have to wait and see what kind of additional measures will be taken on sequestration as they kick that can down the road 30 days. >> the republicans may be in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. if they block this they will, i think, be blamed. what happened was they got a lot in the negotiations. they took care of some of the wealthier supporters. they got the exemption on the estate racks to $5 million for a couple. they got the bush tax cuts to stay in affect for people up to $400,000. they actually won a lot in these negotiations, but they can't accept victory. if they scuttle this thing, the republicans will suffer greatly in terms of public attitude. this passed overwhelmingly in

the senate on a bipartisan vote. >> that is true. when it comes to spending cuts, the ratio 14-1, how do you feel about that? where are the spending cuts, and is there a guarantee they would come down the road? >> what happened was they got to the point of talking about one year of sequestration and that is $110 billion. they decided they would only delay it for two months and even if they delayed it for an entire year, that would have been about $55 billion worth of cuts. they were going to do it half and half. they did $14 billion of cuts as opposed to 55 billion. they never talked about the grand bargain and the big picture. there is no question about that. i would hope, assuming that this thing does finally pass, and both the democrats and the republicans get serious about budget cuts in terms of the long haul, that needs to be done. we have to get past this. this is nuts to discuss tell this deal and have the stock market down and be the

laughing stock of the world after the republicans and the senate voted for it. >> it hit world markets tonight, i believe. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. we'll see what happens. >> thank you. coming up, a mom of four convicted of child abuse, but a big controversy is brewing because a judge actually banned her from having anymore kids until 20 to 25. is that legal? our panel weighs in coming up next.

an unusual plea deal catching our attention. a mom in florida facing serious jail time after being convicted of leaving her four kids, all under the age of 12 at one time, and one with special needs, at a hotel while she went out to party. the judge had a different idea. instead of jail he ordered her to not have anymore children while she serves 13 years on probation. that would take us to the year 2025. after initially agreeing to the deal, the woman could be having second thoughts and may appeal this judge's decision. our legal panel joins us. both former prosecutors and the criminal defense attorneys, guys, happy new year and happy to see you both. >> thank you. happy new year. >> is this legal? can a judge tell someone they are not allowed to have children? >> absolutely not. not at all. what happens here, i think the court missed it in a couple of critical come pone nepts. the first, backing up a minute, you have a woman who now is a multiple convicted felon as a result of leaving

her children alone. that is a harsh thing. she should not have left the children alone. i understand that. now is an opportunity to rehabilitate her and perhaps do community service or something else. now she is faced with the prospect of being a criminal, and her future employment prospects are not there. how she will be able to support them is beyond me. moving to the critical question about what can a court do? the constitution gives us a lib pea interest. the liberty interest says the woman has a right to choose. we know that from roe-v-wade. and they called sterilization inappropriate and improper. it will not stand. >> they say the judge can't do that. >> it is not for the rest of her life. it is for the term of probation. and while 13 years is too long, it would seem to me as a practical matter the judge would have her in relatively quickly. the second point i want to make is that joey knows this

because we were discussing it. there was a case in the wisconsin supreme court in 2001 in which they were saying that a dead beat dad, somebody who was seriously in default on child support, the judge said you cannot have a child unless you come forward first and establish to the court you are capable of affording it. by analogy to here, i agree with joeyment you can't flat out prohibit somebody from having children, but you could theoretically have them say, you have to come in and establish that you are going to be able to do this properly. >> have i to say a woman with four kids who leaves them in a hotel unattended to go to a party should probably not be having more children anyway. but that aside, let's ask about these creative sentences. we hear about them ever so often. there was a case where a judge was -- where a judge ordered a husband to take his wife out and go bowling. you see signs people wear stating they will not do the behavior that got them into trouble. the judges that hand these kinds of sentences, these plea

deals, joey, how much leeway do they have to come up with this stuff? >> generally doug and i love these sentences. why? it keeps our clients out of jail. usually what happens, rick, is that a judge will get the consent of the particular defendant, and as a result of that, you are waiving your right. if a judge says, take your wife out to dinner as opposed to arguing with her and as opposed to discourse and fights, i will say, fine, your honor. that's in lieu of a year in jail. judges often times met out other sentences that are alternative sentences and are a bit creative, but they get the consent. in this particular case the judge goes a little too far when he says, you know what, you are not an appropriate caregiver for the children. do not have anymore children for 13 years which in affect is a life sentence based on the age of the person having these children. and so therefore in this case they went too far. >> final word on these creative sentences that judges sometimes hand down. are they ever a deterrent? >> it is funny.

they had one in new york, on a drunk driving condition. convicted of drunk driving and it was stricken down. if i was an nfl referee i think it is an illegal sennence it. sentence. >> gentlemen, happy new year to you and your family and thank you for coming in. >> happy new year. one of the biggest stories of 2012, superstorm sandy. long island, new york city and nerming new jersey all braced for the -- and new jersey braced for the storm, but nobody could have predicted sandy's immense devastation. and new information on the head injury of secretary of state hillary clinton. what she is battling. coming up, what her health crisis could mean for her political future.

welcome back. 2012 was a brutal year for weather in the u.s. mother natured tested in every conceivable way. janice dean takes a look now at the wild weather year that was 2012. >> 2012 has more than its fair share of wild weather. whether it was destructive, deadly or just plain hot, extreme weather affected americans in every part of the country. after a mild winter for most, spring roared in with tornadoes. twisters tore through several states wiping out communities and killing several people. a devastating ef4 tornado with winds up to 200 miles per hour hit the midwest. henryville and maryville completely obliterated. heartbreaking stories of families ripped apart like this tragic case of angel babcock.

she survived, but died later from her injuries. and there was scorching temperatures throughout the east coast and the midwest. along with historic drought conditions, with the soaring temperatures the communities struggled to maintain water supplies. farmers harvested just a fraction of their crops. ranchers weren't able to feed their cattle. it was the worst drought in 50 years that plagued two-thirds of the nation. the drought conditions made it ripe for wildfires. the waldo canyon fire raged for days killing two people and destroying over 300 homes and scorching over 18,000 acres. it was fuelled by the dry brush and the fierce winds. the unrelenting heat also proved deadly in the mid-atlantic and the midwest states after july's storms killed at least 22 people across the area. it also knocked out power leaving millions sweltering. heat-related death climbed to 20 in the chicago area.

the big easy was not spared this year. hurricane isaac making landfall near new orleans on the eve of the seventh anniversary of hurricane katrina. isaac made landfall as a category 1 hurricane. the slow-moving storm drenched low-lying coastal areas. here is one of the hardest hit areas, plaqueminess parish. it then moved inland innun ditting communities in -- inundating communities in arkansas. an eerie site over phoenix as a dust storm blows in. winds gusting up to 40 miles an hour and bringing dust and sand from the desert. 2012 also saw the birth of a superstorm. a devastating hurricane that collided with a powerful cold system from canada that slammed the northeast. sandy made landfall in south jersey in late october flooding beach communities, submerging highways and washing iconic boardwalks into the ocean. new york city's downtown

skyline fell dark. in breezy point, queens, homes went up in flames. areas of long island, staten island filled with debris. sandy claimed 100 lives and changed the landscape of the jersey shore. and just a week later another blow when the area was blanketed by snow, sleet and rain from a nor' easter. according to fema, vicious heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes and severe storms will cost this more than $100 billion in repair costs. in new york, janice dean, fox news. >> and janice tells us that 2013 will start off pretty quietly, at least weather wise for most people. a bit of rain in the south. light snow in the ohio valley and across the rockies. otherwise dry and chilly in most areas. continuing to follow one of our top stories, doctors are treating secretary of state hillary clinton for a blood clot. the clot is in a dangerous

location. it is between her brain and her skull. so just how serious is this, and what is her prognosis for the future? dr. lee from lsu health sciences center. thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> what are the potential implications for the blood clot, where it is located and how are you reading it? >> well, i mean, it is hard without seeing the patient, but truthfully -- potentially it can be very dangerous. now, it is extremely rare to have this kind of clot in the vein after a mild concussion. if you don't have something like a skull fracture that tears some of the membranes there, but this type of clot is related to other conditions. if you have blood disorders where your blood clots too readily, you can sometimes get it if you have infection, and postpartum, it is common in

women in the postpartum period. and then the clot itself can cause a back up of blood and can lead to damage of the brain and sort of like a little stroke in that area. but her doctors are reporting she doesn't have any symptoms like a stroke. they seem to think they caught it early, and they are giving her medicines to stop the clotting anti-coagulation. that takes a couple days to regulate that. >> and she has a past history of clots, i understand, as well. back in 19198 -- back in 1998 a dvt in her leg. >> that makes you think she has a hyper coaguable state and she is traveling all the time and you can get dehydrated on planes. she is not traveling -- you know, blood clots in your legs are called economy class clots which i'm sure she is traveling on her own plane and she can get up and walk during travel, but sometimes you get dehydrated. she is working all the time, and so that might have

contributed to it. with a mild concussion alone, it is rare. >> so she is a secretary of state, a public servant. talk to me about the recovery and the treatment for this, and would recuff reand treatment in a situation like this affect her ability to do her work either in the immediate or long-term? >> no, i mean it really shouldn't -- if she has no problems related to stroke or impairment from this right now, and they have stopped, she is on good anti-coagulation. she might need to be on the anti-coagulation for life if she has a sticky blood syndrome. she might need this for life, but it really shouldn't impair it. but it is just something she will have to pay attention to and take medications and keep well hydrated. >> so she could possibly still be on this treatment and testify about benghazi? >> oh yes, absolutely. once she is feeling better and out of the hospital, and once they get her level. they have to regulate your level.

>> thank you so much for joining us. happy new year. >> my pleasure. same to you. we are continuing to watch the situation in dc. house republicans counting some votes, trying to figure out what they are going to do next after the senate passing their version of the fiscal deal. the latest on that and then neil cavudo hosts "fly me to the moon." >> have a great new year. bye.